[resending, with a few missing words added...]
Dear AUWG Participants,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The draft is looking good.
Some comments follow, mostly editorial. Sorry for brevity and lack of
suggestions; please let me know if clarifications needed.
Thank you,
- Judy
1. The abstract needs clarification. The non-parallel structure makes
it sound as though ATAG 2.0 addresses accessibility of the tool, and
only as an incidental consequence supports the production of
accessible Web content. Needs to strongly and clearly state up front
that this document addresses two separate but important aspects of
accessibility and authoring tools.
2. Introduction, 2nd bullet, this rationale is limited. Point of ATAG
is not just because of an assumption that many authors will not be
familiar with end user needs, but because of the importance of
increased efficiency of support for production of accessible content.
I'm not suggesting that wording exactly but think that you need to
make that theme more evident here in the introduction.
3. Notes on the Definition (of authoring tools), first sub-bullet: I
think that the use of '"conventional" web page authoring tools' may
"date" the document; I believe that the majority of content on the
Web is already not produced by these so-called "conventional" tools,
and this will be even more the case in the future. No modifier is needed here.
4. Notes on Def, cont, bullet 2: It is unclear how this note relates
to situations where people have limited authoring permissions for one
or more areas or aspects of a Web page; e.g. the note seems to carry
the assumption that author permission is binary.
5. Notes on Def, cont, bullet 3: How stable is this definition of
"live content authoring tools"? If it is stable, please add it to the
glossary. The conformance exclusion that you propose here seems
major, and should be addressed within the conformance section;
perhaps I am missing it there? The parenthetical explanation left me
thinking through various live archiving modes of authoring and
wondering if in fact none of Part B should apply, and the note about
"many guidelines in Part B may still usefully apply"
6. Relationship to WCAG 2.0, benchmarks: Perhaps benchmarks needs a
definition? Not immediately clear what you mean by benchmarks based
on the available context.
7. Same paragraph as #6, and multiple places in the document, is this
usage of "outputted" grammatical?
8. Understanding levels of conformance, first list item, "access
issues for pwd" -- shouldn't this (and in multiple places) be
"accessibility issues"? (And immediately after "the issue be
specific" -- word missing?)
9. Guideline A.3.3 "photosensitive epilepsy". Please use the more
generic term, "photosensitive seizure disorder" instead of
photosensitive epilepsy, so that it is also inclusive of
non-epileptiform stimuli-sensitive disorders, for instance
photomyoclonus, paroxysmal non-kinesigenic dyskinesia, etc. I
believe that this correction has been requested previously.
10. Guideline A4.2 rationale: The logic of this rationale seems odd;
it seems to imply that undocumented features are intuitively
designed, which is probably rarely the case.
11. Success criteria A.4.2.2 "Tutorials are provided for some of the
features" seems to need more precise quantification to be testable.
12. Success criteria B.1.1.2 (Author choice...) If I did not already
think that I knew what this meant, due to having mulled over it a
fair amount in the past, I am not sure that I would understand what
it means from how it is phrased here. I suggest further rephrasing.
13. Success criteria B.1.2.1. (Preserves info...) Ditto my comment in
#12, but slightly more so.
14. B.1.2.3.(a) "that it can detect is not accessibility" suggested
replacement "that it can determine not to be accessible"
15. B.2.1.1., B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3.: "then automatic prompts are also
included for any..." the use of "included" here seems unclear.
Instead, perhaps "available" or "turned on"?
16. B.2.3.1., 2.3.2., 2.3.3. "repair assistance is provided" -- is
there a clear expectation of what "provided" means here?
17. Conformance: Disclaimer: AUWG acronym is AUWG not WAI-AUWG,
please remove "WAI" here (two instances)
###
--
Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA